August 12, 2008

First farmers in the Mediterranean

The invention of agriculture was a pivotal event in human history, but archaeologists studying its origins may have made a simple error in dating the domestication of animals like sheep and goats. The signal of the process, they believed, was the first appearance in the archaeological record of smaller boned animals. But in fact this reflects just a switch to culling females, which are smaller than males, concludes Melinda Zeder, an archaeologist at the Smithsonian Institution.

Using a different criterion, that of when herds first show signs of human management, Dr. Zeder finds that goats and sheep were first domesticated about 11,000 years ago, much earlier than previously thought, with pigs and cattle following shortly afterwards. The map, from her article in the August 11 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows the regions and dates where the four species were first domesticated. Other dates, color-coded as to species, show where domesticated animals first appear elsewhere in the Fertile Crescent.

Until the early 1990s Cypruswas thought to have been colonized ca.8,500 B.P. by a derived offshoot of fullyestablished Neolithic mainland cultures(48). The new sites, however, date 2,000years earlier (10,500–9,000 B.P.) anddocument the arrival of early pioneershypothesized to have originated somewherein the Northern Levant (Figs. 1and 2) (47, 49). Traveling the 60 k toCyprus by boat, these colonists transportedthe full complement of economicallyimportant mainland fauna (50).including all four major livestock species(sheep, goat, cattle, and pig).

Recent archaeological evidence fromthe Aegean, for example, no longer supportsa model of gradual in-place transitionof ancestral Mesolithic cultures intoNeolithic cultures (53–55). Instead,there appears to have been a sharpdecline in Late Mesolithic populationlevels, combined with the sudden appearanceof radically different Neolithicsettlements in previously unoccupiedlocations. As on Cyprus, recent work inthe Aegean argues for the arrival ofmaritime colonists who, at ca. 9,000 to8,000 B.P., carried many components ofthe full Neolithic package (plant andanimal domesticates, new lithic traditions,and, perhaps a bit later, pottery)(Fig. 2). Following a leapfrog pattern,these seafaring pioneers establishedfarming communities that selectivelyfocused on favorable environments incoastal Greece and on various AegeanIslands.

They argue that Neolithic lifewayswere introduced into the Italian peninsulaca. 8,000 B.P. by maritime colonistswho first established farming villages onthe Apulian ‘‘boot heel’’ region ofsoutheastern Italy (Fig. 2). These traditionsappear in northwest coastal Italy~200–300 years later (ca. 7,800–7,600B.P.). In southern France, a compellingcase can be made for a marked geographic,ecological, and cultural breakbetween interior Mesolithic settlementsand coastal Neolithic colonies (58) Recentexcavation of a coastal settlementin southern France, dating to 7,700–7,600 B.P. and characterized as a beachheadcolony of seafaring migrant farmersfrom mainland Italy, has yieldedpottery, domestic sheep, einkorn, andemmer wheat (59).

Having discounted evidence for piecemealcultural diffusion of various elementsof Neolithic economy and theirselective adoption by indigenous Mesolithicpopulations in the western Mediterranean,Zilha˜o (61, 62) has gone onto demonstrate that, as in other parts ofthe Mediterranean Basin, the Late Mesolithicof the Iberian Peninsula was aperiod of population decline and relocation.Also as elsewhere, Neolithic settlementswith apparently fully formedagro-pastoral economic systems suddenlyappear in the Iberian Peninsula ascoastal enclaves occupying limestonebasedsoils abandoned by earlier Mesolithicpeoples.

Thus it appears that none of the earliermodels for Neolithic emergence inthe Mediterranean accurately or adequatelyframe the transition. Clearlythere was a movement of people westwardout of the Near East all of the wayto the Atlantic shores of the IberianPeninsula. But this demic expansion didnot follow the slow and steady, allencompassingpace of expansion predictedby the wave and advance model.Instead the rate of dispersal varied, withNeolithic colonists taking 2,000 years tomove from Cyprus to the Aegean, another500 to reach Italy, and then only500–600 years to travel the muchgreater distance from Italy to the Atlantic(52).

PNAS doi: 10.1073/pnas.0801317105

Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, diffusion, and impact

Melinda A. Zeder

Abstract

The past decade has witnessed a quantum leap in our understanding of the origins, diffusion, and impact of early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin. In large measure these advances are attributable to new methods for documenting domestication in plants and animals. The initial steps toward plant and animal domestication in the Eastern Mediterranean can now be pushed back to the 12th millennium cal B.P. Evidence for herd management and crop cultivation appears at least 1,000 years earlier than the morphological changes traditionally used to document domestication. Different species seem to have been domesticated in different parts of the Fertile Crescent, with genetic analyses detecting multiple domestic lineages for each species. Recent evidence suggests that the expansion of domesticates and agricultural economies across the Mediterranean was accomplished by several waves of seafaring colonists who established coastal farming enclaves around the Mediterranean Basin. This process also involved the adoption of domesticates and domestic technologies by indigenous populations and the local domestication of some endemic species. Human environmental impacts are seen in the complete replacement of endemic island faunas by imported mainland fauna and in today's anthropogenic, but threatened, Mediterranean landscapes where sustainable agricultural practices have helped maintain high biodiversity since the Neolithic.

I also wonder if these are the great Megalithic sea fairing Atlanto-Mediterraneans of Coon.

A primarily Mediterranean coastal phenomenon that took place. Also that area in the East(Mesopotamia), was supposed to be primarily Basic-White/Atlanto-Med. With part've modern Iran involved, perhaps also Proto-Indo-Europeans spread around this time?!

Hmmm... I am re-reading some 1988 university manual and it did suggest dates roughly like these for animal and cereal domestication. 10,300-8000 BCE is roughly 12,300-10,000 BP. No real difference that I can percieve.

In fact they also suggest c. 11000 BCE (13,000 BP) for sheep domestication in the Zagros area (Jarmo specifically), which is even older than the 11,000 BP mentioned in this article. The dates mentioned for goats (11,500 BP), and cereals (11,000-10,000 BP) are also smilar or even older than the ones mentioned here.

So far, so good.

What I do not make much sense about is the revision of the dates of agricultural spread along the Mediterranean. AFAIK Cardium Pottery culture (the main Neolithic wave in the central and western Mediterranean) is of later date. The C14 datations in Eastern Spain (Catalan Countries) for this culture actually are of c. 4700 BCE or 6700 BCE. 1,000 years after what appears in that map. Wonder why this discrepance - that cannot be attributed to a mere issue of bone sizes because we are talking of fully developed cattle and cereals by then, not anymore transitional cases. This timeline discrepancy is also evident in other CP areas, like Italy and SE France.

Additionally, unless there has been a revison of C14 dates that only affects CP and not Andalusian Neolithic, southern Spain (and even Portugal) have older dates for Neolithic than Eastern Spain. It is not CP culture though but a group defined by the Almagra style pottery, who lacked cows, sheep and goats but had pigs (or wild boar?), rabbits (wild?), olives (wild?) and all kind of cereals and legumes in advanced domestication state. It's origin is mysterious but (for lack of a better explanation) it is assumed of North African origin.

It is clearly older than the CP culture by several centuries (6th milennium BCE) and, in its local Portuguese variant (difussion probably) may have been at the origins of Atlantic Megalithism, at least in what regards to dolmenic clannic burials, which are much older in Southern Portugal than anywhere else. It also influenced somewhat Eastern Spain but there it is secondary to CP, the same that CP is secondary to Andalusian Neolithic in this culture's core area.

@Crimson Guard: I also wonder if these are the great Megalithic sea fairing Atlanto-Mediterraneans of Coon.

People in that age surely did not think much in race terms. Probably the peoples associated with Atlantic (and later Mediterranean and briefly Central European too) Megalithism were of varied stocks therefore. The great expansion of Megalithism anyhow happened only later, since c. 3500 BCE (5500 BP), with the exception of Brittany, that is slightly older. It is largely a Chalcolithic phenomenon, even if its early expansion is late Neolithic (pan-European chronology, local circumstances may vary). In some cases, it does overlap with the arrival or consolidation of Neolithic, that in Atlantic Europe is often a late phenomenon (ecological conditionants?) and in the case of NW Iberia (Galicia, Northern Portugal) it may mean the very first human colonization of the area.

"AFAIK Cardium Pottery culture (the main Neolithic wave in the central and western Mediterranean) is of later date".

True. And in the article: "maritime colonists who, at ca. 9,000 to 8,000 B.P., carried ... (plant and animal domesticates, new lithic traditions, and, perhaps a bit later, pottery)". So the first agriculture is not necessarily associated with pottery. Cardium pottery probably spread later. And I agree megalithism was even later.

Does anyone know dates for human occupation of Corsica, Sardinia and the Balearics? Same time as the coastal mainland, or later? Extinctions on the islands would give us a clue.

So the first agriculture is not necessarily associated with pottery. Cardium pottery probably spread later.

No, no. It's not just pottery, it's everything re. farming and herding (and in the case of CP also high seas fishing and therefore sailing). CP culture does represent the first Neolithic in Italy, SE France and Eastern Spain. That's why I am so much puzzled with the dates in this article.

Does anyone know dates for human occupation of Corsica, Sardinia and the Balearics? Same time as the coastal mainland, or later?

Balearic islands CP (which is also first human colonization) is of same dates as for Eastern Iberia: c. 4700 BCE.

The dates for Corsica and Sardinia are somewhat older (late 6th milennium BCE) and related with central Italian CP. Corsica has an earlier event of "colonization" but the lack of any remains that could be associated with Neolithic strongly suggests it was a shipwreck epysode (or at least that's what I've read).

This paper reinforces an opinion of mine, see: www.Kerchner.com/mcgregor/table.htm re The Great Flood. I give quite a few references to various aspects of what happened. See Also the book by Ryan and Pitman, marine geologists at Columbia Univ.

I argue, based on these references that the Great Flood was real. That it was caused by Meltwater Pulse IV and a huge Mt. Etna landslide which created a huge underwater tsunami that inundated the eastern Mediterranean and led to the breach of the straits of Bosporus and the saline flooding of the Black Sea. It also produced a Tsunami in the area between Norway and Iceland called Storeggae which destroyed life on doggerland and the british isles. This is the source of discontinuity in the mesolithic/neolithic and in R1b. The time estimate of the Flood is 8200 BP to 7600 BP. The survivors, probably heavily around the Black Sea than began a mass migration westward?

The book I reference is: Noahs Flood copyright 1998, so it is 10 years old. The R1b discontinuity is the paucity of dys 393 = 12, which antecedes 13. Based on cultural and demic diffusion models the Paleolithic value should dominate the population of R1b; it certainly doesn't and I think this explains why?

Maju, i know that, but I am just postulating using the old Anthropological ideas some thoughts. I don't believe the so-called Atlanto-Mediterranean is different from the Classic one. There differences were primarily based on height alone-- which neither height nor body build are good indicators of race anyhow.

One has to wager the floods that occured around this time had very little effects on human development and creation of civilizations in the Mediterranean basin and or even the megalithic spread into North Atlantic. The Megaliths are after all a Meso-to- primarily Neolithic phenomenon.

The oldest and most intricate Megalithic structures are found in Malta I believe, which was settled by Sicilians specializing in farming and fishing. The Ggantija temples are more than 5500 years old.

Crimson: I am sorry but I cannot correlate presumpt human types with Megalithism, specially as it does not seem to be primarily a colonization phenomenon but a cultural difussion one.

The Megaliths are after all a Meso-to- primarily Neolithic phenomenon.

Neolithic to primarily Chalcolithic phenomenon, sorry. Pan-european chronology usually considers 3500 or 3000 BCE as the beginning of Chalcolithic Age, the latter date is much closer to the local truth in Western Europe. The beginning of Neolithic instead is of 2 to 4 milennia before, depending on the region. In Britain and Ireland they usually ignore the term Chalcolithic and talk of Late Neolithic instead but that's just a local British phenomenon and possibly a mssinterpretation, specially if we consider the Chalcolithic more as a socio-economical phenomenon of increased complexity and stratification than a mere techno-metallurgical stage. That is also what we do with Neolithic as well, not anymore defined by the mere presence of polished stones.

Megalithism can anyhow be a catch-all term. When I think of Western Megalithism or megalithism in general, I think first and foremost of dolmen burial, which may or may be not associated to other megalithic types, but which is the identificative "fossil" in any case. Dolmen burial is of "collective" type (clannic) and does not include cremation (as often happens in stone rings).

The oldest and most intricate Megalithic structures are found in Malta I believe, which was settled by Sicilians specializing in farming and fishing. The Ggantija temples are more than 5500 years old.

I have anotated dates more like 3000 BCE for Malta but anyhow, the difference is small. Your dates still makes them younger than Breton and, certainly, Portuguese megalithism (dolmenism).

Dolmenism expanded c. 3500-3000 BCE throug Atlantic Europe, being briefly important in sub-Alpine Central Europe before the IE conquest and also expanding irregularly, specially after 3000 BCE, in the Western and Middle Mediterranean, both in Europe and Africa. Since c. 3000, we see also new "sophisticated" types of megaliths, like tholos and artificial caves in SW Europe, as well as stone rings in Britain.

This latest scenario may well explain the arrival of the Y-Haplotype "R1b" in the west.

What latest scenario? Dolmenism or neo-megalithism? Both seem to be cultural difussion processes, and the latter is irregular and of small importance (though the monuments are often impressive), surely being of greater importance for the new Chalcolithic elites than for the common people, who remained attached to dolmens (and non-megalithic forms of "collective" burial) for long.

If Dolmenism would be responsible of any meaningful Y-DNA spread, we should witness some sort of Portugal-centered structure - what we do not seem to be able to discern. Any demic phenomenons associated with Western Dolmenism must have been localized and/or irregular.

Additionally, R1b is just too dominant in Western Europe for such late and mostly non-demographic phenomenon to account for it. If R1b replaced something older it must have been in a process of massive conquest and colonization and we just cannot see anything of the like in the archaeological record. All the known migrations (mostly of the early Neolithic or the late IE expansion) are localized and totally inconsistent with the starlike structure of haplogroup R1b1b2. This starlike structure can only correspond to a fast, overwhelming and homogeneous expansion that jut could not happen after Paleolithic.

Maju: I like your latest comment, but do not have enough experience on this forum to precisely know where you are coming from. I am a believer in the traditional Paleolithic, mesolithic and finally Neolithic migrations to western europe. I believe that disasters, see above, may have severely depleted the mesolithic/Paleolithic populations in the 15K BP to 8 K BP time period such that western europe appears to have very little "old" haplotypes. I disagree with that. I argue that the value 12 at dys loci 393 antedates the value 13, I kind of consider 13 as the Celtic label. All the classic papers I have read about Cultural/Demic diffusion argue for a substantial remnant of the paleolithic, which we do not see in R1b? Thats why my research tried to understand, what happened to the 12's ( disclaimer: I happen to be a 12!).

Given all this what is your scenario for R1b in western europe? I apologize if you have explained yourself before and also maybe there is a previous Dienekes write up I should read, although I believe he has adopted the neolithic model that Ken Nordtvedt and Vince Vizachero have promulgated at rootsweb?

I believe he has adopted the neolithic model that Ken Nordtvedt and Vince Vizachero have promulgated at rootsweb?

Not really. First of all, I haven't seen a proper study of R1b variation in Europe; haplotypes gleaned from ysearch don't count for me. Second, the young TMRCA of R1b doesn't mean it must have come from elsewhere _at that time_.

I am glad to hear your are open-minded? Have you looked at the datasets generated by R.L.Tarin,Jr. at the the World families network website? Bob claims he has filtered out obvious father/son pairs. I have used it extensively, even though VV claims it is biased. As far as I know, it is the largest R1b set available? When I separate out the few 393 = 12 at some of the R1b subclades, I consistently get TMRCA's much older than what I achieve with all 13's. In general the 13's cluster around 7K to 8K BP, which is after the great flood, and as Maju says they then experienced starlike growth, very rapidly. I attribute part of that to the relatively benign environment we have had since then. I have asked myself, why didn't the 12's take off also, my shaky answer is that they were afraid, in general, to return to the lowlands. The Albans in scotland up till the time the Picts came into the picture, occupied the Northwest part of Scotland, certainly not the most climate friendly? All of DKF's groups seem also to have been "highlands" oriented. The highlands, in general, do not support population growth that the lowlands do??? As I mentioned before, my web page: www.kerchner.com/mcgregor/table.htm presents a list of references all pertaining to aspects of the flood. Comments, please.

I am a believer in the traditional Paleolithic, mesolithic and finally Neolithic migrations to western europe.

No "Mesolithic" (that is Epipaleolithic, many reserve the term "Mesolithic" for transitional proto-Neolithic cultures) input detectable in Europe's archaeological record. All Epipaleolithic cultures are derived from Paleolithic ones, specially Magdalenian. It is not impossible that some flows happened in the late Epipaleolithic period though, but always within Europe.

I am not "believer" in anything, I just know that the archaeological record only seems to support three migrations of meaningful size into Europe: Aurignacian, Gravettian and Neolithic and that the impact of the latter is clearly limited. To these you can add Indo-European migrations from what now is considered Eastern Europe (but was in ancient times thought diffusely as part of Asia, as their urheimat was east of the Volga).

I believe that disasters, see above, may have severely depleted the mesolithic/Paleolithic populations in the 15K BP to 8 K BP time period such that western europe appears to have very little "old" haplotypes.

I strongly disagree with that: the archaeological record is very much continuous and there are no signs of any "disasters". Even among West Mediterranean "Neolithics" you often see clear dominance of local Epipaleolithic tools, notwithstanding that they incorporated foreign elements such as pottery, agriculture and farming.

I argue that the value 12 at dys loci 393 antedates the value 13, I kind of consider 13 as the Celtic label.

I would not build a theory on a single DYS locus. I understand that the main haplotypes with DYS393=12 are Anatolian and seldom found in Europe (and mostly in the Balcans) and that DYS393=13 is massively dominant among Europeans and curiously enough also important among Anatolians.

Following Alonso 2005, there is one "13" haplotype that is most widespread and looks like the root haplotype. The other two major haplotypes are also "13". The main haplotype divide is probably between Anatolian clades and those of Western and Central Europe, what strongly suggests two separate origins.

While Anatolia was probably at the origin of all or most immigrations to Europe and surely of the original Aurigancian one, there is also some likely backflow from Europe, noticeable in the adoption by Anatolians of the realistic cave art. There was also backflow from Eastern Europe into the Zagros in the Paleolithic as well, though this may be associated with other clades anyhow, as R1b is very rare in the European East.

So I am not really sure where R1b originated ultimately but I think its spread into Europe is surely connected with those haplotypes that are more common now, all of which are DYS390=13, DYS390=12 clades surely remained in Anatolia if they do not represent a back-migration.

All the classic papers I have read about Cultural/Demic diffusion argue for a substantial remnant of the paleolithic, which we do not see in R1b? Thats why my research tried to understand, what happened to the 12's ( disclaimer: I happen to be a 12!).

It is either the product of a recent mutation or of an older one that remained in Anatolia.

Tentatively I'd associate R1 with Gravettian and would consider it basically a European clade (though it's hard to disentangle West Asia and specially Anatolia from Europe anyhow). My biggest issue is to explain how some subclades, rare in Europe, reached Central Asia but as they seem to correlate with mtDNA H (similar starlike structure, similar geographical spread) and this clade is quite clearly European Paleolithic (and probably Gravettian too) the same process must have affected both, roughly speaking. They look much like founder effects of oddball migrations into those desertic lands but I'm not sure if they originated in Europe or in Anatolia and, if it is the former, if in the original Gravettian split at the mid-Danub, some ill-researched Solutrean erratics (there's a late Hungarian Solutrean, not well known by the public) or equally odd Magdalenian-derived founder effects, it's hard to say.

Given all this what is your scenario for R1b in western europe?

Fixation by drift in the LGM, with expansion in late Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic. Mainstream model, I believe, though questioned by the MCH fans.

There is a lot of meat in your comments. thanks!! I'll respond in parts. First, terminology: Maybe the best thing we could have is a "dictionary" from Dienekes so that everyone understands what everyone else is saying?? The thing that first comes to mind is the "argument" between Dienekes and VV about whether an SNP defines a subclade. It seems to have been settled by a fairly astute gal from NZ who said they were both right, from differenent points of view, i.e., Tectonics (sp) and Systematics . A different way we could specify the general age is by using terms like very late Pleiestocene and Holocene, where Holocene starts about 11,500 years BP, the end of the LGM??

My area of interest probably doesn't precede the earliest dating I have done for Iberian, s116+ of about 14K BP. I usually like to use years rather than G (generations). Terms like Neolithic are also ambiguous since it relates more to an age where a certain level of technology was used in a culture, ala Bronze, Iron etc. (The Neolithic age in China is much earlier than Britain)?? So, in summary, I would very much like to see some of these "semantic" issues defined and put aside so we all can address the real issues.

Maju said: "the archaeological record is very much continuous". I would argue that the Genetic record isn't! Please read We are not our ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans", Ellen Levy Coffman,JoGG, Fall 2006 (on line). This is a MtDNA argument and I don't agree with everything she says, but this article started me looking for a Y DNA discontinuity. I believe I found it in the 393 R1b history as I've described. First, some analysis which will cover several issues at once. Dating: Current Rootsweb thinking by Ken Nordtvedt is that s116+ is 4K BP old!! I have a real problem with that (VV says maybe 4K to 8K BP). Note that Nordtvedt uses what are called Chandlers rates derived from father son pairs. There is an excellent example on line at the Charles Kerchner web-site. It is a documentation of his family since they arrived from Germany almost 350 years ago. All the descendants are known and the current generation has all been tested out to 67 dys loci. Charles carefully points out the difference between real mutations (unique transmission events) and inherited mutations. In his families case there are 8 UME and 14 total apparent mutations. In this type of analysis you must only count UME's. I analyzed the TMRCA using ZUL derived rates which I use and Chandlers rates. I get 1703 (305 years) which is the birthdate of Adam, the original ancestor. Chandlers rates predict a TMRCA of 1899 (109 years). This is the classic 3 to 4 to 1 difference in germ-line rates and evolutionary rates Dienekes has been talking about. In my particular case, It puts s116+ as being founded 12 to 16K BP instead of 2K BP. The Iberians data set of Tarin dates to the same time period for 393 =12. My Ysearch is z5hg3. I have only two close 67 dys loci matches, a 5 and a 4 - both from the UK. I can't probe it but I hypothesize that our common ancestor is descended from Iberian forefathers and then possibly further back, Anatolian. I have also done the same analysis on the Genetic MacGregors and trace the founder back to about 1300 AD, Chandlers rates again are about 1/3 too short.

I have been studying the dating issue for quite a while and have reached no satisfactory solution. Dienekes has a model but I'm not sure, based on the above data, that the model represents the reality of what we're trying to understand.

Going back to your original point, I hypothesize that something causing great loss of life happened. The great flood is the best answer I know of now. I really think part of the answer lies in doggerland??

I would argue that the Genetic record isn't! Please read We are not our ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans", Ellen Levy Coffman,JoGG, Fall 2006 (on line).

I think I have already read that and anyhow I have already gone over much of her objections in other contexts. For instance, Izagirre and de la Rúa main argument is the lack of haplogroup V in their samples, yet haplogroup V is very rare among Basques except Gipuzkoans, and they did not study any Gipuzkoan site. Overall their samples are all taken in peripherical places that could have at times more "Mediterranean" input that is visible now, as the demographic center (and also the area of greater Basque "purebloodness" has been displaced northwards.

I also find suspicious her claim that Scythians were of Altaian origin. I make little sense of it.

Re. Chandlers rates: I suspect all or most of the mutants are actually illegitimate branches. It's estimated that 10% of people is illegitimate children (though they may not even know in most cases) and it was probably higher in the past when there were no anticonceptives at hand. I may be missing details but the reasoning looks weak. Would they be dealing with mtDNA... it would be another story.

I have been studying the dating issue for quite a while and have reached no satisfactory solution.

I think that this method (Molecular Clock - whichever type) will unavoidably yield erroneous dates becuase it's all speculation added to other speculations. The only way is to look at archaeology, at history and prehistory, and determine the mutation rate on known origins. For instance, if you know that certain region was colonized by Irish in certain decade, with no more recent input, you can compare the most common R1b clade among Irish and look at the divergence dates. If the community is isolate, then the risk of distortion via admixture should be very low. I know there are cases in Brazil of "Amish-like" colonies founded by Venetians, you could compare Venetian genetic pool with them and decide what has changed. if you do that upon several samples, then you can maybe get a decent "clock".

For me the standard MC estimates are often too recent and believe the main reason is the under-estimation of the Chimp-Human divergence date, which must pre-date fossil evidence by one to four million years, as well as the assumption that OOA happened after Toba, what is surely wrong.

Going back to your original point, I hypothesize that something causing great loss of life happened. The great flood is the best answer I know of now. I really think part of the answer lies in doggerland??

It would not have wiped out the population in any case. I find anyhow the "great flood" myth way too Christian to be real. Inccidentally, Basques have no flood myths and anyhow the flood myth is commonly interpretated as the Semitic invasion of Mesopotamia, not as any real flood, absent also in the archaeological record of the area (there are localized floods in Mesopotamian sites but no one so massive, all are local).

In any case, such flood would have left a clear archaeological record. And there is no such thing: I look at local data and all is continuity and no sign whatsoever of any catastrophe. There are some caves that have a totally continuous record from Chatelperronian to the Iron Age, including transitions.

I really think that people who are challenging the well studied prehistory of Europe based only on the molecular clock hypothesis need a reality check.

For me it's clear: if consolidated prehistory clashes with the MCH, the MCH is wrong and must be revised so it fits with reality.

You make some good points. I'll answer you broadly, rather than nit-pick.

I have a great distrust of names and history. I am an example where I carry the name McGregor, but I am not a genetic McGregor!!(by the way this was a disappointment to me). Most of written history reflects the writers biases. Certainly, the early Irish Celtic writers made sure they agreed with Church doctrine; the Roman Tribunes made sure they never lost a fight! Why did they build the walls across southern Scotland?

Basically I trust the science in all of this: Carbon 14 dating, Oxygen isotope dating of ice core samples, dendochronology (tree rings) - again each has its limitations and accuracy, but they are "unbiased" to emotions.

Until 6 to 8 months ago, I thought the molecular clock hypothesis supported most of prehistory as we then knew it? These are rough numbers I have predicted for the TMRCA of certain groups of people: Iberian 12's = 12,250 BP; Iberian 13's = 10,500 BP (note I predicted continuity in Iberia); non-iberian 12 = 8400 BP; s21 13 = 6700 BP; S116 13 = 8300 BP. I don't think many folks from the other sciences would have argued with the these numbers? (note the 12, 13 refer to dys 393). If you look at the dates on the map of the paper being discussed, nothing I have estimated is out of whack.

In general, I agree with the idea that this is a multi-disciplinary effort. We need to understand/agree across the board! Thats the problem with current rootsweb position, it wipes out all the other sciences? I know Dienekes has found some agreement with an E subclade, but most other dating by the Chandler rates is too recent in time, by previous standards.

I don't believe the flood destroyed civilization, it set it back severely in the northern hemisphere. The Black Sea, as it now exists, was produced in great part by the Flood. Old shorelines, pre flood have been mapped and describe a much smaller, fresh water lake pre flood.

Re: the science of molecular biology - it is in its infancy. I have a background in the systems thinking behind information theory. When I look at the molecular clock problem, I try to understand the channel coding? How are SNP's and STR's interconnected? Is there an error correction code? Is there any signal compression? We have no model of the process. The STR's are a complex signal, octuples and higher - not just binary! No math I've seen adequately describes this process - so you are right, we are just guessing at the present time. I happen to think Dienekes is doing some great work and thats why I am here; to try to understand his modelling, and adapt what I understand to my thinking. Its going to be interesting to watch this "science" evolve.

I don't have access to the full paper but I have already asked before without answer. Why does Zeder conclude that West Mediterranean dates must also be moved backwards in time? AFAIK, C14 datations for Cardium Pottery have not changed and the only cultural wave of Neolithic that can account for that Balcans-to-Iberia expansion of Neolithic is CP.

Certainly there is a Neolithic in Southern Iberia of older date (La Almagra pottery group, dated to the 6th milennium BCE) but this one had only a very limited influence around it, often after the arrival of CP. It is a good case to illustrate the problem of wether their animal (and olive) consumption was of wild or domestic origin but cereals and legumes were clearly domestic in any case. They did not have ovicaprids nor bovines anyhow, only boars/pigs and rabbits. It is totally unrelated to anything found in Mediterranean Europe, so it's speculated to be of North African origin instead (as this area is much more poorly researched).

But the issue of Cardium Pottery C14 dates being inconsistent with Zeder's map stands and is of major importance.

I understand that you feel that Western European R1b should be of Neolithic age. Your date estimates, specially for Iberia, actually are more like Epipaleolithic maybe but that would be inconsistent with an Iberian core: actually (non-Cantabrian) Iberia is a reciever, not a giver, in all Upper Paleolithic and certainly in the Epipaleolithic, when Azilian first and Tardenoisian/Sauveterrean later exert a very marked influence and possibly even direct colonization of the area. Iberia could have been a giver in the case of North African Oranian culture though - but this is not fully clear. The primary "giver" regions in European UP seem Central Europe (where both Aurignacian and Gravettian appear first fully formed) and then the Franco-Cantabrian region (Magdalenian specially).

So, yes, older dates for (non-Cantabrian) Iberian clades seem to contradict UP processes being involved, when this area was secondary, not central.

But how good are those dates?

We have no model of the process. The STR's are a complex signal, octuples and higher - not just binary! No math I've seen adequately describes this process - so you are right, we are just guessing at the present time.

You already answered my question.

I'd just want to add, emphasize, that the CP sites, from Southern Italy to Eastern Spain, only occasionally appear as fully new colonies. In most cases they look Epipaleolithic peoples incorporating the new culture. In SE France, only a couple of sites at the Maritime Alps show up as colonies, in Eastern Spain, I recall there is one site in Catalonia and a whole area south of Valencia and north of Murcia that look clearly colonized. The rest is partial aculturation of natives, who keep using their local Epipaleolithic tools, while incorporating pottery and farming. This case is probably also the one of southern Portugal, but here the influence is not so much from CP but from regionally older Andalusian Neolithic.

There is only one possibility I can see that Western R1b1b2 could be inserted into a Neolithic/Chalcolithic scheme of things: Megalithism (Dolmenism more specifically). But I find very hard to believe that this cultural phenomenon actually implied mass migrations. AFAIK, Atlantic Megalithism does not substantially alter local cultures but just gets inserted in them, and most treat it as a religious trend, not a culture in itself.

Another issue I see is the actual distribution of R1b1b2 in Europe, which remains strangely coincident with Magdalenian and derived Epipaleolithic cultures geography. While early Western Megalithism shows a somewhat similar distribution, it does not include important R1b areas like central and eastern Spain, middle Germany or some important chunks of Britain, and also eventually includes areas that are pretty low in R1b, like important portions of North Africa and southern Italy.

Overall I find it fits a lot better with the "classical" Paleolithic model.

I think we are agreeing more than disagreeing. I think Zeders dates reflect her thinking of when relatively fully developed neolithic cultures left the near east. It just happens to be just after the great flood when a lot of people were displaced around the Black Sea. Migrations were up the major black river feeders but also West.

My major interest has been Scotland and the highland clans and the Celtic tribes that settled the highlands. Most of the these tribes, as I have shown trace their heritage back to Iberia. In that sense Iberia was source of the Gaels; Aquitaine and Galicia, Picts; northwestern france, Laiginn; the lowlands, Erainn; the lowlands(belgium etc.). This was the second major migration out of Iberia and was partially caused by the Romans. The native Albans, who predominantly settled Northwestern Scotland were the first wave out of Iberia, about 10K to 12K BP. Who settled Iberia? I do not know. Gravettian culture possibly but I think Mediterranean shore travellers also of earlier times. Your classical peoples.

I also estimate the R1a/R1b split as 25 to 30 K BP. These folks then become the Aurignacian/Gravettian folks you talk about and, again they may have used river traffic, e.g. Danube as a means of access to central europe???

I don't think much of anyone was in the British Isles pre: 15K BP, because there were glaciers all over Scotland I believe?? The high caves of Greece also show some very early settlement.

So I see the story unfolding (possibly) as follows: 20K to 30K BP; aurignacian and Grevettian cultures migrate west and a little north. As the weather changed some migrated into the Balkans and Iberia about 15K to 12K BP. These became the source of the first migrations to the British Isles, 15K to 10K BP. 8K BP, we have the flood, and populations are reduced. About 7K repopulation begins along with more migrations from the Black Sea area. The climate moderates, sea levels stop rising and the population began its biggest growth in western europe until today. JMHO

I opted to respond to your dating/modelling question separately. I am not a great mathematician, I am a fairly good modeller, or at least, before I retired, thats what I got paid to do: random scenes and their power/Wiener spectra; Magnetic Recording; other recording processes. My comment about the diffculty of fully modelling this channel (the Y chromosome) stand; that said we can generate models as ZUL did and Dienekes, make calculations and then compare to the real world. At present, I do not show a SD (standard deviation) of my estimates; that is not good science, but I don't, yet, have a good feel for what the number really should be. Ken Nordtvedt estimates a 1K yr uncertainty of his estimates and I'm sure I am no better? But not having a full understanding of the process we are observing, mutations on the Y chromosome, does not stop us from attempting to simulate, as Dienekes does, and observing the outputs. I think we are making good progress, and will improve as time goes by.

Another point, I have described the "invasions" of the West as points in time. That is not really true, I think it was almost a continuous process with "burps" along the way: the ending of the Ice Age, post flood, etc. were points in time when the migrations were probably larger than normal.

Hmmm. I think we are getting a little way off topic. Anyhow, I like our timeline for the R1 split, though I am not myself certain it was actually that way.

I don't think Iberians were ancestors of Gaels though. Celtic peoples spawned from what is now Germany and Switzerland and their spread to Iberia and the British Inslands is unrelated. Ibero-British connections existed and were important before them though. But I cannot conclude on the available data that Brits or Irish are directly derived from Iberians, at least not for the greatest part.

Look at my R1b modal haplotypes page at my blog site: www.kerchner.com/mcgregor/table.htm There is continuity starting with clan Gregor, through to the Dal Riadic invasion of scotland back through to the the non-iberian Tarin data set and then the Iberian dataset. 393 12 and 13 should be kept separate because one is mesolithic/neolithic (13) and 12 is paleolithic. These are all modal haplotypes and they all converge to the Iberian modal haplotype. Note how I have the 15,16,17,17 at the 464x series. This the same as the Iberian modal!! I do believe the Aquitainians were related to the Gaels. They were the second invasion of Milesians (?), in to Ireland; the Galiciians were the first, JMHO.

Sorry, could not open the xls file. My obsolete and chaotic software is probably to blame.

In any case, I read DYS393=12 as Anatolian and DYS393=13 as Western European. All major Western clades are 13 and all major Anatolian/Caucasian clades are 12, except the most widely distributed subclade (14-24-11-13-13). For me that makes a very likely central difference between Western and Eastern R1b and suggests that 12 clades may have arrived to the West in Neolithic times, much as a good deal of the small but meaningful Morroccan R1b (that has dual but distinct correlations with Iberia and Anatolia).

Overall I am of the impression that the R1b haplotype distribution in Britain, Ireland and even Denmark cannot be explained solely considering Middle Europe as source. But we cannot fully exclude that the modern distribution of haplotypes in that area has not been altered by Chalcolithic IE migrations. Otherwise it would look like at least some Basque/Iberian input was necessary to make up those cakes, so rich in the 14-24-10-13-13 clade.

In principle, I'd argue for a double (or even triple) source and I would not discard that Megalithism-associated flows existed along the Atlantic/North Sea. But I would not argue for "Galicians" being any of them because Galicia (and Northern Portugal) was colonized very late in Neolithic times (no Upper Paleolithic record, except for some Azilian in the NE) and is surely among the latest colonized provinces of Europe, maybe excepting the extreme North. Looking at Southern Portugal instead or even thinking in migrations from Britain/Ireland into Galicia in Chalcolithic/Bronze Age would make better sense.

I don't know what Basque-specific migration into the islands could have taken place after Epipaleolithic. Only Artenac culture was really expansive but its influence was continental (Atlantic France and Belgium) and I know of no offshots into the islands. But Epipaleolithic migrations are harder to judge.

Nevertheless c. 8000 BP (famous Doggerbank flooding) the cultural flow is rather from North to South, with Tardenoisian-related elements appearing everywhere, in some cases (Catalonia) in identical form (what suggests colonization rather than mere difussion).

I can change the file format. Please tell me what you can read and I can email you.

First, what are the dys loci you are referring to? I think I know what they are, but I want to be sure.

I am a 393 =12 and a 390 =23 with a 13 at 388. I believe I have a very old haplotype. This is partly why I disagree with a 4K age of s116+, since I also am s116+. I do not know for sure when my ancestors arrived in Scotland, but I think it was very early, maybe 10K to 15K BP?? My two closest matches are both from the British Isles (less than 5 different out of 67.

I distinguish between England, Scotland and Ireland. The Irish write of invasians by at least 4 tribes at different times. They end with the Milesian (Gaels?) about 0 AD +/- 300 years. Scotland was never conquered: not by the Romans (look at the walls they built), Vikings got the Islands but nothing else and the Danes/Anglo-Saxons were severely defeated. When I analyze a highland clan like the MacGregors and look only at R1b (about 80%+of all entries), I find: Erainn (roman Atrebates), Pict (cruithne), northwest irish modal (gaels) and Laiginn (campbells predominantly), and a few albans such as myself. The others (non R1b) are descendants of the Romans, Vikings and a few later immigrants.

The history of the migrations beginning about 15K BP is conjectural, but I believe one has to look for Forces to cause displacements? I look at Climate, Food and War in that order. I believe the first was Climate and resulted in a South/North displacement, this was concomitant with the search for more abundant food. Doggerland caused a North/South displacement as you say, mostly into central europe, I believe? The Romans (war) first conquered what is now Spain and displaced the Gaels? They then attacked Gaul and drove out the Laiginn and Erainn into England and then Ireland. The Picts occupied the West Coast of what is now France (Brittany) and made several migrations, once up the Irish Sea and once to the East Coast of Scotland, where they replicated their megaliths.

I think the Epipaleolithic migrations to the North were following the Walrus as the Bay of Biscay was "fished" out and the Walrus traveled North as the Atlantic warmed.

Much of what I say is speculative, but it is based on climatic and invasion forces into the Spain/Germany/French regions.

I can change the file format. Please tell me what you can read and I can email you.

XLS is Excel, right? Or is that XLM? While my Excel crashed long ago, I can still open tables via Word. Would it be downloadable (media file), I could open it directly - but it seems not to be the case, sorry.

You can send that stuff to lialdamiz AT google.com, for instance. I should be able to read it hopefully.

First, what are the dys loci you are referring to? I think I know what they are, but I want to be sure.

I'm using Alonso-2005 as main reference, so the DYS sequence is 19, 390, 391, 392, 393.

I am a 393 =12 and a 390 =23 with a 13 at 388.

A rare clade, right?

I believe I have a very old haplotype.

I am not questioning that DYS393=12 might be older than DYS393=13 but I would rather think that haploype 14-24-11-13-13 is the main node connceting Anatolian DYS393=12 with Western DYS393=13 clades an that this transition would seem the most important one in the West Eurasian R1b (or R1b1b2) structure. There are some other "12-13" possible connections but they affect much smaller (rarer) clades and anyhow also appear to be at the Anatolian/European divide.

Scotland was never conquered...

It was conquered by the Celts certainly. No matter the Picts were Celtic or not (an unsolved issue AFAIK) because the Scotts were original from Ireland in any case. The Celts are ultimately original from what is now Germany and nearby areas, so there was at least one conquest, maybe more. Also, we do not know for sure if Megalithism may have brought with it some gene flows anyhow.

But yes, I'd agree that Scotland looks demographicaly quite "virginal" in any case.

I think the Epipaleolithic migrations to the North were following the Walrus as the Bay of Biscay was "fished" out and the Walrus traveled North as the Atlantic warmed.

Much of what I say is speculative, but it is based on climatic and invasion forces into the Spain/Germany/French regions.

You have to consider the archaeological record first and foremost. And AFAIK the evidence seems to suggest that Northern Europe, including the islands, was colonized primarily from continental middle Europe (Northern France, Belgium, Germany) in the Epipaleolithic.

6. Megalithism (Dolmenism primarily): oldest in Portugal. Spreads northwards through the Atlantic and also into the Upper Danub, SE France and Southern Spain. Later into West and Central Mediterranean with the likely exception of Malta that seems older. Demic flow likely low but hard to say.

7. First major Indo-European conquest: affecting Central Europe and Scandinavia (Corded Ware). Went through a long period of "adaptation" at certain localities (Elbe, Vistula). Coincidentally, expansion of Artenac culture (proto-Aquitanians?) through western France/Belgium.

8. Bell Beaker: oldest in Bohemia. No meaningful demic flow with exceptions (Rhin area, of late date). Pseudo-culture: it inserts itself in local contexts that show clear continuity and seems to incorporate local peoples.

Additionally it may be worth mentioning that in the late Bronze Age there were still strong economic/cultural bonds between Western Iberia and Britain/Ireland, also affecting Atlantic France.

It's also worth mentioning that Azilians still used Magdalenian derived harpoons, unlike Northern cultures (AFAIK), so the walrus hypothesis appears unlikely. But who knows? For me it's as simple as: there were new open niches as ice melted, so people moved in (no matter the specific resources).

Scotland was never conquered. First, I believe there were the Albans! They arrived c. 12-15k BP. Basically, they were coastal fisherman who had travelled north. At some, point the Picts first arrived, maybe as early as 7K BP?? They spoke a different language than the Albans by that time but they understood each other, unlike the later Scottis. I believe the Alban language was probably very close to Basque? I believe the Albans were pre-celtic? As far as I can tell they welcomed the Picts (early celts).

I have not based any of my work on the "Archaeological Record", because, before carbon dating, there was no "science" to it??? All my dating and inferences are based on TMRCA analysis and the corresponding modal haplotypes. My oldest estimate, using this data, is about 14K BP for the s116+ 393 = 12 (only nine entries - so very suspect). I converge the s21+ and Iberian 12's to about 12K BP. The end of the last Ice Age. I have no prior data, and whatever there may be will probably be very sparce? So, essentially, my history begins at that time, probably on the Iberian Peninsula or in the Pyrenees? I find the Iberian 13 TMRCA as about 10,500 BP. This is the oldest 13 I have identified and it comes from Iberia! Most of my non-iberian 13's (s116,s21,Tarin) have a TMRCA near 8K BP, which is near the occurrence of the "doggerland" flooding. The four Irish tribes: Gael, Erainn, Pict (cruithne) and Laiginn also exist in the haplotypes of scotland and all appear to originate from Iberia. The Albans also appear to be from there also??

The incidence of the Germanic tribes in Scotland and Ireland is minimal, based on haplotype analysis. The predominant genetic presence in Ireland and Scotland after R1b is probably R1a (Viking), followed by small amounts of Anglo-Saxon and Roman.

I can imagine what the Albans may have looked like, small, wiry, like the Archer found in England. Probably oval-faced, not square like the scotti/dutch. All my female ancestors are mostly of scottish lowland descent and I most resemble them.(Hunter, Lindsay,Armstrong, etc.)

So, I have really nothing to contribute when it comes to cultures before Iberia, I don't have the genetic data. I only trust science; not names, not history nor the "soft" sciences that have no real scientific data to support their position.

I am not trying to be smug or arrogant about this, its just that I have been "burned", when I used "data" from other sources. For me, the genetic data doesn't lie (only the interpreter sometimes).

Having the name McGregor, I have a different slant on Scottish History than most.

1. The Picts didn't conquer the Albans, they occupied northeastern scotland and part of the center. When the Romans came they fought together. The Romans claimed they won mons Grampius and then they proceeded to build two walls???

2. The scottis came in from the southwest, argyll, and fought with and against the Picts and Albans against the Vikings. It was the marriage of McAlpin with the Pictish Queen that united the the three constituents - not warfare.

3. The Vikings never did establish a major village in Scotland to my knowledge. Yes, unfortunately they cleared the Islands of the Albans, but later ceded the Islands back to Scotland.

4. The Angles never made it into the highlands. They were repelled by the Picts several times. They may have occupied some of the lowland eastern border towns???

5. The Normans didn't conquer Scotland - only England, the best I know. During the Scottish independence period, alliances were formed with the French/Normans to spite the English.

6. The Scottish border is a hodgepodge so to speak, from a genetic point of view. The highlands were completely independent, or so, until Culloden!! By the way, my ancestor had left by then, 1684 to be precise, well before Culloden and the the clearances; whatever.

Alas, in the end you are right!! They borrowed the stone of scone and started raising sheep and drove the crofters all over the world. The name I carry was proscribed by the English for almost 200 years!!!

I have already replied to you by mail. Just to add that I think your clade is from Scotland (has no apparent correlation with the "12" clades from Anatolia) but from a different lineage from the one you posted as "McGregor". Both are Scottish in any case but seem to have quite different patterns:

The first one is apparently derived from the most common in Middle Europe (the Low Countries, Austria), what may mean Epialeolithic colonization. The latter instead is the most common in Scotland, also found in the North Sea and the Basque Country in significative ammounts.

What brings me to a point that both have agreed upon: that the Picts were fishermen arrivals from outside (someone mentioned Aquitaine, what means "Basques"). This is a most interesting point that I was totally ignorant about, so... can you point me to some resource where I can learn more?

I had already read something about Megalithism being spread by cod fishermen (at least as hypothesis) but I was ignorant about Picts being fishermen original from Aquitaine.

Yes, I believe my clade is from Scotland but I am not a "genetic" MacGregor. At some point, long ago, my ancestor was adopted into the clan. I believe I am of Alban descent, the original name of Scotland was Alba. They were the first settlers of the highlands just after the Ice left??

It is too bad your Alonso (please provide the full reference) did not use 385a also since it plays a major role in the tribes. I have done several other studies and have convinced myself that 10, 11 at 391/385a is Erainn(Scotti) and 11, 11 is Pict. I have traced these haplotypes all the way back to the Iberian data set of R.L.Tarin, Jr (go to world families network where his databases are). Unlike 393 12/13 which antedate each other. I separated the data sets along lines of 10/11 and 11/11 and found no separation. Note the iberian and non-iberian data sets have 391 at about 70% 11, 30% 10 for both sets of data. So the Patriarchs of the Erainn and Pict go way back in time.

I had thought the Aquitaine were Gaels also, but the Pict description works also. They are both offshoots from the original Pyrenees inhabitants. One group apparently went North (Picts) and one south Gaels (Galicians).

This point has not been discussed much by the acadamicians(impact of fising) that I am aware of. I can recommend an amateurs book, which I found very readable and somewhat credible for his hypotheses. The book is "Farfarers" by Farley mowat, a canadian. He has many interesting premises about the original scots and their Iberian roots.

Sorry, I thought it is a well known study: - doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201482- http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n12/full/5201482a.html

I had thought the Aquitaine were Gaels also

Aquitanians (Lat. Aquitani) were Basque speakers, it's uncontested. More obscure is the matter with other tribes like Cantabrians.

North of the Aquitanians, at Poitou, lived the Pictones, who were Celts indeed. Maybe you mean them. The toponym "Aquitaine" has fluctuated through the ages and that may have confused you. The modern French region of Aquitaine approaches the old one, though the historical region of Gascony is a much more exact match. In the Middle Ages it was known as Vasconia (from which: Gascogne) and Aquitaine instead was used for a Romance realm north of it, including Poitou, Limousin, Tolouse and other areas.

This point has not been discussed much by the acadamicians(impact of fising) that I am aware of. I can recommend an amateurs book, which I found very readable and somewhat credible for his hypotheses. The book is "Farfarers" by Farley mowat, a canadian. He has many interesting premises about the original scots and their Iberian roots.

I don't think we can talk of such ethnically defined clade. Celtic genesis and evolution is complex and long, surely incorporating different subsets of people into their nation.

First there is an obscure genesis out of Western Indo-Europeans and (specially) Indo-Europeanized natives at the western margins of IE range at that time (the Rhin area mainly). This process takes maybe some 1100 years. Then they experience three succesive expansion waves along another whole milennium, the two first ones surely also with other IE ethnicities. These expansions also mean (in some cases very clearly) the incorporation of further native masses, maybe as serfs, maybe as allies. It's hard to pinpoint a single clade that could be associated with them, specially in Britain and Ireland, where the main element of original colonization surely also arrived from the same area of Middle Europe.

They were surely vectors of many clades from Middle Europe into Iberia, France and the islands but what is Celtic and what is pre-Celtic is not something easy to detect.

I'll tell you mine: It is basically the non-iberian modal haplotype of the Tarin data set.

It's identical to the Iberian one and it is the most widespread clade in all resources I could access. It seems to be much older than Celts. For me it's actually the root clade (or, if the root is in Anatolia, then the European root clade anyhow).

The Iberian and non-iberian are not exactly the same. The Iberian has a 16 at 464c, a 19 at 576 and they differ by one at CDYa. I estimate the Iberian TMRCA is about 2K year older than the non-iberian.

I don't know who went where first? I surmise that as the Ice age diminished, the fishing peoples inhabited most of the coastal lands of Spain, France, the British Isles. These peoples probably originated in Iberia. The Flood redistributed people away from the coast into the higher elevations, northern scotland and parts of Germany, switzerland, France and northern Italy. The Balkans also could have been the source of some of these folks, certainly the 13 at 393, and 23 at 390 which are a separate sub-clade of R1b. s116+ seems to be Iberian in origin and populated a large part of the British Isles. Small numbers dispersed in other directions?? After 6K BC, the climate improved, migrations increased and populations grew all over western europe. So, I think Iberia is the home of s116 and the WAMH, the Balkans are the home of some of the other, somewhat more eastern sub-clades of R1b??? Because of the timing a doggerland source cannot be denied for parts of Germany and the Alps.

I tried the address you gave me for the Alonso paper and had no luck? Is it correct?

McG said:The book is "Farfarers" by Farley Mowat, a Canadian. He has many interesting premises about the original Scots and their Iberian roots.

I read that book a few years ago, and he certainly has some interesting things to say about the importance of marine mammals and fishing in early socities on the Atlantic fringe. However, that being said, he also weaves a story which is false in many places, and misappropiates the historic seafaring of Irish monks and makes these voyages to be that of people from the North of Scotland or the Northern Isles - when there is documented evidence about this. So that part is very misleading and counter factual.

Also, McG, you have the habit of using the same phrase to mean different things in your posts. We know the origin of the original Scots, they were Gaels and more specifically Scotti, from Ireland and spoke Q-Celtic, no mystery there. If you mean the original inhabitants of today's Scotland, then the earliest historic inhabitants are Albans - as you previously stated.

What's interesting is that today's Scottish population are the product of 5 historic peoples, Albans (aka Caledonians), Picts, Gaels, Angles and Vikings. Most of these have carved out coastal kingdoms. The highest percentage of Y-DNA haplotype J in all the British Isles - at 7% IIRC - is actually in the mountains of Central Scotland - could this be the relic of the Albans?!

This is similar to the fact that central Spain has 33% of Y-DNA haplogroup I - which seems to be the oldest male lineage in Iberia.

The Iberian and non-iberian are not exactly the same. The Iberian has a 16 at 464c, a 19 at 576 and they differ by one at CDYa.

Ok. That is not in your data anyhow. And in any case tells us of small differences only.

Both seem to belong to the lower resolution clade that I call "modal R1b" (14-24-11-13-13 of Alonso or the HT1 of proofer joan's site: http://www.geocities.com/prooferjoan/R1b.htm).

Anyhow I wonder what "Iberian" means (what populations specifically: Iberia is large and diverse and from the Paleolithic viewpoint was divided in at least two clearly different regions). "Non-Iberian" is even more ambiguous.

I don't know who went where first? I surmise that as the Ice age diminished, the fishing peoples inhabited most of the coastal lands of Spain, France, the British Isles. These peoples probably originated in Iberia.

I do not have it clear that your Doggerbank flood had any major consequences. You have shown so far no evidence (like silting maybe) of it affecting any specific area. Epipaleolithic peoples were often seafood gatherers and I have no reference on any discontinuity of this behaviour caused by your alleged flood. But it may be coincident in time with a N-S cultural flow, so maybe it did cause a wave of refugees from Northern/Middle Europe.

In any case, archaeologically speaking, southern Iberia is mostly a reciever region, but that does not apply to the Franco-Cantabrian province that includes parts of Iberia and "France" (Occitania actually). Some time ago it became fashionable to talk about "Iberian refugium", what showed that the people talking of it had little or no knowledge of European Prehistory. Luckily, soon the Franco-Cantabrian concept became better known and replaced it.

For that reason talking of Iberian and non-Iberian clades happens to be so confusing. Because the core area of a good deal of European Prehistory was partly in Iberia and partly outside it.

As said before I understand that this "HT1" clade is extremely old and its flow into Iberia may even date from Gravettian (or maybe just Magdalenian) times.

I made it very clear how I looked at Mowat and his book. That said I have much less faith in history as written in the early centuries by the Romans and later by the monks in Ireland. I wouldn't bet that Mowat misrepresented what the Irish Monks did? I know they travelled to Iona. Early history, names mean very little to me.

I don't know your sources nor the specifics of how you think the tribes invaded Ireland and subsequently Scotland. I am aware of four tribes: Picts, the earliest "invaders" after the Albans. They appeared to have settled the East Coasts of Scotland and Ireland. The Laiginn and Erainn (atrebates to the Romans) were driven out of the low countries, first into England and then into Ireland, The Erainn in the NorthEast and the Laiginn across the south. I think the Gaels came last and first displaced the laiginn to Argyll and later the Erainn over the period of about 0 AD to 500 AD. I believe the Gaels are characterized by the IMH, descendants of the Ui'Neill. Now this may not correspond with your version of history, but thats what I have ascertained. I am certainly willing to reconsider, but my analysis of the scottish clans supports this contention in part, i.e. The Scottis are 10 at 391 and 11 at 385a, the Picts are 11, 11, you can see this split all the way back to Iberia. The Laiginn (Campbells) have their own special haplotype with a:15 at 385b,19/20 at 458,and a 16 @ 464c. That leaves the NW Irish Modal, found at a low frequency in the highland clans, but predominant in Ireland. A 25 @ 390, a 14 @ 392, 16's at 464 b and c.

When you look at the highlands you see sparceness, because of the attempt at ethnic cleansing, which began with the Vikings on down. Given you find 7% in the Highland Wilderness, to my knowledge they never developed any large towns, etc., except as I have admitted where they cleaned the Islands.

I am not expert in I so I cannot comment on your comment about the genetic make up of central spain.

Please be advised that most of what I say is based on DNA analysis of the Highland clans which I have been doing for over three years. This is what the data tells me. Using Bob Tarins Iberian and non-iberian data sets in conjunction with the clan data leads me to the conclusions I have stated. I pointedly have not relied on history, the meager archaeology - except the aftermath of the great flood, and any naming. Look at the Clan Gregor FtDNA web site and scan the Ian Cam. You'll find 5 or 6 Stirlings there!!! They are MacGregors who adopted the name at the time of proscription in the early 1600's!!! DNA doesn't lie!!!

It has been estimated that 60% of Icelander's mtDNA traces back to Ireland, and so the population is mainly of Irish/Norwegian descent. I have a 1 Y-DNA matches in Iceland, with a genetic different (GD) of 0, and 2 with a GD=1, so on the male side too Irish freemen or slaves (Thralls) may have made the trip. Of course since the Irish had settlements in Iceland BEFORE the Vikings discovered it - mostly of Monks - they may have directly left descendants there. The Vikings called the Irish Vestmenn - meaning Men from the West - and there are a few place names that include this name. They called Irish monks Papar - meaning followers of the Pope - and there are a few placenames with this too.

I hope you got the full 37 dys loci values for the two sets?? I know a little about bob, he now lives in San Antonion, Texas I believe. His family is partially from the Canary Islands and partially from Iberia (whatever that appears to mean?). His non-iberian data set is made up of R1b who state that their earliest known ancestor did not originate in Iberia. So it is a mix of s116+, M269, s21 etc. He apparently sorted it to keep out father/son pairs. To him, Iberia is as he defines it and the earliest ancestor in that data set is from that region. Thats about all I know of the data sets. What is important is the 13's of all the non-iberian's have a shorter TMRCA than the Iberians, i.e., they are younger. So iberian heritage predates other R1b sub-clades???

I have extensive resources listed on my web page about the the MWP4. I mention one, After the Ice, by Steven Mithen. His chapter 17 titled "coastal catastrophe". He estimates that more than 17,000 cubic kilometers of sediment was dumped across the East coast of Scotland... as a record of mesolithic catastrophe.

The precise definition, if there is one, of Iberia eludes me. I consider the land north and south of the Pyrenees as Iberia???

I noted with great interest the 5 dys loci Iceland signature. It resembles me, especially if you evolve it to scotland as Maju does. If I can believe Mowat, the times at which Walrus were in Iceland were prehistoric??? According to him they were chased from the Bay of Biscay north and west to Labrador!!

I do not think you can use the word irish or scottish at that time. All you had was Alban, both in Ireland and Scotland!! I'm also pretty sure they didn't differentiate among themselves??? I believe the type of boat they both used, walrus hide, has an old replica/antique in a Dublin museum?? Once the Vikings had the Long boats, about 700 to 800 AD, they controlled the northern seas. When do you think the Catholic Church started in Ireland. How many centuries would they have had to fish Iceland? If Ken Nordtvedts time frames is correct, than I was born about 1500 BC +/- 500 years. Then the fishing didn't start until much later and you are right??? My second closest match is from Ireland!!!

As to your heritage. I would guess, because of the provenance, that you are NWIMH, e.g., gael in my definition. Good luck!!

IIRC the Galicians are high in Y-DNA haplogroup J as well as central Scotland.

Capelli et al. 2003 (doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00373-7) does not mention any large apportion of Y-DNA J among any British population. The highest samples are only at 5-7% (the Highlands sample indeed but also many samples from England).

NW Spaniards (incl. Galicians) appear high in Y-DNA J maybe but unlike Highland Scots (that are exclusively J2) they have both J clades in similar apportions. Anyhow, from a historical perspective, maybe Portugal would be a more likely source of Mediterranean erratics along Atlantic Europe. After all Galicia was only colonized late in the Neolithic, appearing more like a reciever area than an exporter of DNA.

I have extensive resources listed on my web page about the the MWP4. I mention one, After the Ice, by Steven Mithen. His chapter 17 titled "coastal catastrophe". He estimates that more than 17,000 cubic kilometers of sediment was dumped across the East coast of Scotland... as a record of mesolithic catastrophe.

I don't know how realistic is that data but certainly there's no sedimentation I know of in SW Europe.

The precise definition, if there is one, of Iberia eludes me. I consider the land north and south of the Pyrenees as Iberia???

The issue is that the Pyrenees kind of continue along Northern Iberia (Basque mts., Cantabrian range). Romans made no distinction and that seems also to have been the case with Paleolithic peoples. In the Paleolithic there was the Franco-Cantabrian province (north of the mountains but partly in Iberia) and the Mediterranean Iberian province (East/SE Spain), each with a different sequence, even if related at times. Other areas like central Portugal or the few sites in the Plateau are either intermediate or, mostly, link up with Med-Iberia or Iberia proper.

The derived peoples (Spaniards and Basques/Gascons resectively) also tend to cluster separately in genetic studies, at least when there is enough resolution.

"Instead the rate of dispersal varied, withNeolithic colonists taking 2,000 years tomove from Cyprus to the Aegean, another500 to reach Italy, and then only500–600 years to travel the muchgreater distance from Italy to the Atlantic"

For anyone who's ever played the computer stratgey game "Civilization" the immediate thought from this is "Granaries."

Specifically the rate of population growth expanding as agricultural expertise improves thereby decreasing the time between over-population events.

."A primarily Mediterranean coastal phenomenon that took place"

Black Sea -> Danube and possibly Mediterranean -> Atlantic coast always needs to be included in that imo.

Old Blog Archive

Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to human population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history.

You are free to reuse any of the materials of this blog for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute them to Dienekes Pontikos and provide a link to either the individual blog entry or to Dienekes Anthropology Blog.

Feel free to send e-mail to Dienekes Pontikos, or follow @dienekesp on Twitter.